The Hilton Hotel in New York City was packed on August 6th and 7th with 2400 attendees who had come for the 6th Annual BlogHer Conference.  The last time I had been in the Grand Ballroom was to see Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama onstage, for a post-convention unity event.  Ironically, it was the divisive politics of the 2008 election that pushed greater numbers of women into the blogosphere, as they clamored to make their opinions heard.

That same year, the New York Times covered the San Francisco BlogHer conference with a story—on their fashion page—that had a tinge of snark.  Now, in 2010, no one doubts the influence or economic muscle of women online.  Anyone who remains unconvinced needed only to navigate the exhibition hall lined with 100 sponsors (a 50 percent increase over last year). Natural and green items, kids products, and an array of services all shared the floor.  From the smaller supporting sponsors like thredUp (a children’s clothing exchange) to the ranks of the top “Diamond” brands such as Pepsico and Procter and Gamble, the message was clear.  Women have clout to be reckoned with. As consumers—they are able to drive purchasing dollars.

When I asked a number of the corporate reps why they had chosen to be present at BlogHer, their answers all echoed the same mantra.  Amy Goodman, Fashion Trend Director at Timex said, “We’re working to make more connections in the blogosphere and to provide content opportunities.” Their booth was devoted to the company’s Fall line of watches.  Anne Westbrook, handling External Relations for Procter and Gamble, told me that P&G was back at BlogHer for its second year.  “We’re here because women bloggers are major influences.  We want to talk with them on their terms and bring them opportunities and relevant content.” In their large, house-styled booth was a full range of brands from CoverGirl to Bounty. I gravitated to the demonstration of their project, "Clean Water Blogivation." The social media campaign was designed to “showcase the power of female bloggers to improve the lives of people in need of clean drinking water,” and to enable “women bloggers to be part of the clean water solution.”

PepsiCo chose the BlogHer conference to roll out their new women’s platform, "Women, the 5G Network." A “Sofa Summit” breakfast early on Saturday featured top female brass from the PepsiCo team in dialogue with Campbell Brown. I contacted Jamie Stein, Director of Communications for Tropicana and the point person on PepsiCo’s online women’s initiatives, for a comment on their interest in the women’s blogging sector.  She replied via e-mail, “Women are, and have always been, incredibly influential on social issues, in business and at home with their friends and families. Now, with connectivity, women are wielding even greater power. As a company, we want to help enable the change women see, through innovative platforms like our 5G Network online channel and interactive experiences at events like BlogHer.”

On the lookout for socially conscious business tie-ins, I learned that Liberty Mutual was onsite to familiarize women with their mission, "The Responsibility Project"—exploring what it means to do the right thing.”  Paul Alexander, the Senior VP of Communications, walked me through the company’s profile and its commitment to the “culture and values of integrity, dignity, and respect.”

Whether in the exhibition hall or over lunch, I saw a lot of action. Connections were being made. Women had come to learn, build their brands, and be energized.  Eyeballing the crowd, I saw moms with babies in strollers or on their backs (yes, there was a place to breastfeed) and a wide range of ages.  Elisa Camahort Page, BlogHer’s co-founder and COO, explained to me in an e-mail that one of the hallmarks of their events is diversity.  Regarding the speaker roster she wrote, “One third of our speakers were women of color, a slight improvement over last year.  We also ensure that we bring both liberal and conservative voices, LGBT voices, mom and non-mom voices to the microphone.”

The keynotes and panels delivered.  With forty-two sessions divided into seven verticals (change agents; passion; personal; professional; geek lab; writing lab; job lab), participants could be heard lamenting the difficulty of having to choose among topics.

“The FTC Guidelines: After a Year, Has Anything Changed,” had a room full of people trying to get a handle on the Endorsement Guidelines that were put in place to insure that “no deception in advertising” occurred on blogs. Top advice included being transparent, explaining connections to advertisers, and keeping disclosures in close proximity to the content.  One fundamental boiled down to, “When you get a product or cash, you must disclose; when you are not compensated, you don’t.”  Stacey Ferguson, Senior Attorney in the FTC’s Division of Advertising Practices, suggested the safest approach—“When in doubt, disclose.”

At “Creating Tangible Social Change: How to Move People to Action,” led by Women and Hollywood’s Melissa

Silverstein, each panelist described how they were impacting specific communities.  Beth Terry, writing at Fake Plastic Fish, blogs about “living life with less plastic.” Terry discussed how her writing had helped to revise the plastic filter recycling policies of Britta in the United States.  Stephanie Himel-Nelson, the Director of New Media at Blue Star Families, outlined how the organization’s blog—dedicated to supporting and empowering military families—was becoming a go-to resource.  The biggest laugh lines went to Gina McCauley.  The founder of two blogs, What About Our Daughters and Michelle Obama Watch, she is also the organizer of the Blogging While Brown conference, the first conference for bloggers of color.  Answering a question on how she handles personal attacks and negative feedback, McCauley responded, “I’ve built up a lot of scar tissue and taken a lot of body blows.”  On dealing with trolls she advised, “Don’t engage with people on platforms you don’t control.” She added, “She who pays the hosting fees makes the rules!”  All the speakers emphasized that an “authentic voice” was more potent than stats on page views or the number of Twitter followers.  McCauley pointed to one of her most valuable realizations from the blogging experience saying, “It brought out the reality that my ideas matter.”

Saturday’s morning keynote featured the International Activist Blogger Recipients. They were Esra’a Al Shafei, the founder of Mideast Youth; Dushiyanthini Pillai, the force behind Humanity Ashore; Marie Trigona, who publishes Latin American Activism; Freshta Basij-Rasikh, who contributes to the Afghan Women’s Writing Project. It was a dynamic and moving presentation. The focal points of their respective blogs included bringing together young people in the Mideast region, human rights, war and landmine victims, the 30,000 who disappeared in Argentina during the 70s and 80s, and developing a platform for Afghan women to tell their stories.  Underscoring the importance of global issues widened the perspective of the conference. It also made it impossible to ignore the risks being taken by these bloggers, a contrast to the secure setting of the BlogHer event.

Immediately afterwards, I attended “Radical Blogging Moms: Don’t Even Think of Not Taking These Moms Seriously.”  Joanne Bamberger (PunditMom) moderated.  Stephanie Roberts spoke about her photographic and digital documentary work.  Annie Urban discussed how her anger had pushed her to become politicized.  At her blog, PhDinParenting, Urban has been an outspoken critic of the Nestlē Corporation for "unethical business practices."  Urban uses stories to explain a situation, rather than “prescribing or instructing.” She shared an interesting anecdote about how the legal firm employed by Nestlē had been scrutinizing her blog.

A number of women in attendance entered the blogosphere in response to family concerns, personal challenges, or the need to reach out and build a support system.  I met and spoke with Ellen Seidman, a magazine editor who writes “Love That Max—A blog about kids with special needs (and the parents who adore them).”  There was a panel on “Blogging Autism: Shattering Myths, Opening Eyes and Finding Your Tribe” and one entitled “Grief, Loss, Tragedy and Community on the Internet.”

The closing keynote was “How to Use Your Voice, Your Platform and Your Power.”  Alison Stewart helmed the dialogue with The White House Project founder and president Marie Wilson, author and activist Gloria Feldt, and journalist P. Simran Sethi. The participants parsed the question of power. Earlier, the audience had been

reminded that in 2009, BlogHer placed #4 on Katie Couric’s list of the “seven most powerful people in media”.  The prevalent question was how to best leverage the power of women in the blogosphere—which was characterized as “the great equalizer.”  With the democratization of the media, Simran Sethi asked, “How do you want to use your voice?”  Wilson stressed the importance of women running for office and becoming part of government.  Feldt, who has a book coming out on “how women can change the way they think about power,” insisted that women have more of it than they realize.  She noted that corporate sponsors were “finally getting the picture,” but questioned if women understood the full import of what that entailed.  When I contacted her for additional thoughts on this concern she wrote me, “The two floors full of exhibitors aren’t here just because they love us. They’re here because they know the power of women’s collective purse.  So we need to use that power intentionally and collectively to shape the consumer market, to get what we want—whether it’s healthy snacks for our kids, green products, or shoes that are comfortable rather than hobbling us—and not allow ourselves to be bought.”

Before taking questions from those sitting at tables in the ballroom, Stewart asked each woman to speak about their own most difficult moments.  A roar of laughter greeted Wilson’s comment, “Behind every success is years of crap.”  Listening to women from the audience, it was clear that a sense of validation was achieved from their blogging contributions. One woman reveled in the realization that online, she was understood. “Wow,” she exclaimed, “You get me!”  Another participant thanked the speakers and the conference planners for “lighting candles in the darkness.

Whether a woman was reaching out to build a community of mothers, dish on beauty and style, reflect a political agenda, or explore a lifestyle choice, it was clear that the BlogHer’10 demographic had a wide range of interests.

The general consensus was that once you were out there, pushback would be inevitable.  The response to that fact was the same…at every session across the board:  “Stand your ground and keep writing.”

Photo credits: TOP – TOO Left by Justin Hackworth for BlogHer; IN THE MIDDLE TOO Right by Trevor Christensen, BOTTOM- TOO Left by Justin Hackworth for BlogHer

Tweet This Post

On August 2, the 80 minute cinéma vérité production "12th & Delaware" has its debut. Directed by Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady, the team responsible for the Academy Award nominated "Jesus Camp," they once again employ a fly-on-the-wall point of view. This time they explore the white-hot struggle over abortion.

"12th & Delaware" utilizes a street intersection in Fort Pierce, Florida, to illustrate the deep ideological divide between two camps of thought. The metaphor emanates from the physical proximity of two facilities located across the road from each other. One is an abortion clinic called A Woman’s World. The other is an office named the Pregnancy Care Center. The later came into town in 1999, eight years after A Woman’s World opened up. When a chiropractor vacated the adjacent building, the pro-life organization purchased it. Part of the current strategy of those opposed to abortion is to have offices offering undefined services to pregnant women located close to Planned Parenthood health centers and independent abortion clinics. Many women inadvertently end up at the wrong destination.

The film took two years to make. Footage was shot the same year that Dr. George Tiller was murdered. The team contacted over 100 crisis pregnancy centers before they chose the Fort Pierce location. A screenwriter’s imagination could not have set the scene any better.

The film begins in the darkness before dawn. At 5 a.m., a woman with a sign saying, “Thou Shalt Not Kill,” has already taken up her post directly in front of A Woman’s World. She is a regular presence, with a repertoire of pleading entreaties. One of her refrains is, “95 percent of women will tell you that they regret their abortion.” She holds up a fetal figure, part of her visual arsenal.

We meet Anne, the director of the Pregnancy Care Center, who explains her commitment to her work. With only “herself and her two dogs to be responsible for,” she is devoted to the pro-life movement. We see her interact with a series of girls and women. The youngest is 15. The center’s offer of a free ultrasound is particularly persuasive, especially for those without insurance.

The camera follows Anne during her intake consultations, and then monitors her comments to her staff. “She’s abortion-minded,” or “Let’s look for a heartbeat to influence her decision,” are favorites. In a moment of chalking up victories for her cause she exclaims, “Yes. Yes. Two in one day!” To a 17-year-old girl who has had a prior abortion, her advice is not to tell her mother about the situation. When she takes the girl and her boyfriend through the visuals of the ultrasound (“It shows what’s happening there.”), she types onto the screen, “Hi Daddy.”

Anne is scathing in her attitude towards her adversaries across the way, equating the clinic to a car dealership. However, as we watch her do a training session with future personnel, she puts forth an agenda of techniques that would put a car salesman to shame. She tells them, “Attract the client. Hook her right away. Engage her in conversation.” She explains, “I’m not trying to talk her out of it. I’m trying to get her in the door. There’s no deceit in this.”

Direct and intense, Anne asks an 11th grade girl, “Do you know what you really choose when you choose abortion?” She shows her a video and informs her that as a result of the procedure, she may lose so much blood that she may die. Realizing she has overplayed her hand, she takes a step back and asks soothingly, “Want to go with the computer animated [video]? There’s no blood. It’s all animated.”

Anne does get push back from 24-year-old Victoria, who already has two children. Trying to convince her to keep her options open, she buys her lunch while they talk things out. When Victoria informs Anne that her boyfriend is verbally abusive, Anne offers that, “The baby might change him.” However, Victoria stands firm insisting, “I have to do what’s best for me and my kids. I know for a fact I won’t regret it. Abortion is to terminate unwanted pregnancy.” Stepping outside to make a phone call her conversation relates, “This bitch is getting on my (expletive) nerves.” She’s not gonna be there.” Resolving to get her ultrasound so she “can get out of there,” Victoria says later, “Maybe because she thought she bought me McDonald’s, I was gonna change my mind.”

A cast of players, like a Greek chorus, supports Anne’s point of view. Father Tom Euteneur preaches in his church that abortion is a “ritualized blood sacrifice.” He tells his parishioners, “We’re speaking about something deeply diabolical.” A man in shorts, with the body of a bouncer, has made it his mission to track down the identities of the attending physicians—so that he can pass the information on to those who will make the best use of it. He states flatly, “This is life and death we’re dealing with here.” He notes derisively, “Someone came up with the idea it’s a woman’s right.”

Wandering into this tinderbox is a town resident who seems to agree in principle with the anti-abortion activists, but who strongly objects to their methodology—particularly their use of placards (picturing enlarged and dismembered fetuses) in a school zone. “The Bible says not to judge,” she tells them. “You keep pointing a finger. This is not helping.” After she walks away, the reaction is, “She’s an overprotective mom who doesn’t want her kids seeing posters of torn apart babies.”

It is forty-four minutes before the viewer meets Candace and Arnold, the wife and husband who run the abortion clinic. The previous unrelenting rhetoric and ominous background music create a claustrophobic tension, giving an inkling of what the women seeking services are enduring. Up until this point, our only exposure to Arnold is seeing him driving the doctor (whose identity is shielded by a white sheet over his head) to and from the clinic in his yellow Mustang. Candace is pictured looking out from her orange-painted establishment through window blinds, monitoring the activity on the sidewalk.

The faces of the girls and women that Candace counsels are not shown. A 46-year-old with health issues discusses her concern about being able to take care of a child at her age. Candace asks her, “Do you have any doubts? I want to make sure this is what you need to do.”   She advises another woman—who confides, “I don’t have a good life” and appears beaten down by her partner’s sexual demands—that she cannot have sex without using condoms or birth control pills.

The young girl—in session with Anne before realizing that she was in the wrong place—tells Candace, “They made me watch this very gruesome video.” Candace discovers that Anne has misinformed the girl about the timeline of her pregnancy. Believing that she is at seven weeks, two days, Candace gently tells her that she is actually at ten weeks. After the girl leaves Candace says, “They lie to patients about how far along they are, because clinics go to ten to twelve weeks, and that’s it.”

Candace’s rhetorical questions to Anne and her organization are, “Why are you messing up these girl’s lives? Why are your playing around with them like that?” As an afterthought she says dispiritedly, “I feel like crying today.”

Earlier, Anne is seen at the March for Life in Washington, D.C. At this juncture she announces to her opponents, “You can not outlast us.” Before the final credits roll, the audience learns that there are currently 4,000 pro-life centers in the United States, and 816 abortion clinics.

The filmmakers have offered up a valuable source of insights into the trench warfare on this topic. However, a resolution doesn’t seem to be in the offing any time soon.

Cross-posted with permission from cultureID.

Tweet This Post

What constitutes maternal health?  The World Health Organization defines it as the “health of a woman during pregnancy, childbirth, and the post-partum period.”  How does America, the number one global spender on health care, measure up against other nations? The latest available statistics come from 2006, when there were 13.3 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births.  In an example of a one-on-one matchup, when compared with Germany, the United States racks up figures at four times the German numbers.

Within our borders, the news is even more dismal.  Broken down by state, Maine had the best showing at 1.2 deaths per 100,000 live births.  The District of Columbia had the most disconcerting figures: 34.9 per 100,000 live births.  What, as a country, are we doing wrong?

As documented in the 138-page hard copy Amnesty International report, there is no shortage of contributing factors.

First and foremost, America has no nationally implemented guidelines and standards for a comprehensive system of maternal health care.  Amnesty has suggested that the “U.S. Congress should direct and fund the Department of Health and Human Services to establish an Office of Maternal Health.”  Projections show that improving the standard of care could prevent close to 50 percent of deaths.

A starting point is the necessity of prenatal care, which is defined by The Healthy People 2010 Goals as thirteen prenatal visits beginning at the first trimester.  Those women who do not receive this medical attention are shown to be three to four times more likely to die of pregnancy-related complications than women who do.  The reasons women don’t connect with this crucial care emanates from a health system that currently sustains impediments to care, and is rife with bureaucracy, inadequate services, and even discrimination.

In 2009, more than one in six Americans had no health insurance.  Thirteen million women from the ages of 15-44 were part of that demographic.  Health care costs can be prohibitive.  An uncovered ultrasound costs $1,000.  Accessibility in both rural areas and inner cities is a major obstacle.  In these settings, it can be problematic for women to obtain transportation to clinics, and even then, many of the serving institutions are seriously understaffed.  Quandaries arise when a woman has to choose between showing up for her job and keeping a prenatal visit.  Inflexible office hours, lack of childcare for other children, and language barriers also present challenges.

Women of color (African-American, Latina, Native American), women in poverty, and immigrant women are hardest hit by these obstacles to prenatal care. It was documented that African-American women were four times more likely to die of pregnancy related complications than white women.

Jennifer Dohrn, DNP, has worked on the frontlines as a midwife since 1987, when she joined forces with the Morris Heights Health Center in the southwest Bronx in New York City. As the first freestanding birth center in the country for urban women, the MHHC served those with no access to health care.  Dohrn wrote by e-mail, “Maternal mortality is not an unsolvable problem.  We have the technology to provide safe motherhood for women in the United States and globally.” When Dohrn started, one-third of the women in the community had received no prenatal care at the time of delivery, and infant mortality ranked amongst the highest in the country. Opening a center that was accessible to women encouraged early entry into prenatal care given by skilled midwives, continuous involvement of the family, and safe delivery with promotion of breastfeeding.  There were no long waits, the staff reflected the culture of the clientele, and state financed programs for pregnancy covered the costs.  As Dohrn made clear, “This is a model of how it can be done.”

Another key factor in the maternal health equation is the Caesarean section.  Almost one-third of all American deliveries fall into this category, a number that is twice as high as the World Health Organization recommendation.  The odds of death after a C-section are more than three times higher than vaginal births.  75 percent of maternal deaths occur after a Caesarean delivery.

I spoke with Dr. Charles S. Mahan about the alarming extent of procedures taking place nationally.  His primary concern was that women were having unnecessary operations.  He has seen an escalation in the procedure over the past five to tens years.  Dr. Mahan believes that a major reason in the rise of C-sections is that women are not getting enough facts about potential complications to give “true informed consent.”   He stressed that many patients were under the impression that it was safe to deliver their babies at thirty-seven or thirty-eight weeks.  The optimum time frame is between thirty-nine to forty-two weeks.  Dr. Mahan suggested that doctors might be choosing this form of delivery based on considerations that were not purely medical.  He emphasized the inherent dangers, explaining that “the surgical procedure poses short and long term health risks to mothers and infants.”  Dr. Mahan pointed out that a “scarred uterus poses risk to future pregnancies and deliveries.”  In addition, women who have Caesarean deliveries are more likely to experience “deep venous clots that can result in pulmonary embolism or stroke.”  He referenced the CIMS website and their February 2010 fact sheet for cutting-edge data on Caesarean sections.  It should be noted that inadequate post-partum care contributes to more than half of all maternal deaths, which occur between one and forty-two days after delivery.

One of the points that the report highlighted was that “women are not given a say in decisions and do not get enough information about sign of complications and risks of interventions—including induced labor and Caesarean deliveries.”  Severe complications that almost cause a maternal death during a delivery are euphemistically referred to as “a near miss.”  Annually, 34,000 American women have that experience.

Angela Burgin Logan falls into this category.  When I spoke with her by telephone she related a hair-raising story that combined elements of medical arrogance, missed and ignored symptoms, and a form of physician brow-beating that made her feel dismissed as an “hysterical” mother-to-be.  Her mantra now is “Listen to your own voice.”

A college educated, upper-income African American woman living in western New York State, she took extreme care in researching and picking her OB-GYN.  Yet as she described, “Not too long into the pregnancy, something didn’t feel right.”  She was gaining weight at a troubling rate, and at five months she could not lie flat on her back.  She had pains in her left arm.  The red flags were up for orthopnea and heart failure.

Only at her urging did her doctor finally agree to send her for a work up.  The nurse/technician on duty alerted her to worrisome symptoms.  Despite the presence of protein in her urine—a clear indicator of preeclampsia—her doctor “sluffed it off.”

Burgin Logan spent her final three months of pregnancy sleeping upright in a chair.  When she rushed to the hospital ER at thirty-seven weeks complaining that she “couldn’t breathe,” her husband was advised that she was having a panic attack.  Rather, fluid had flooded her lungs, making it impossible for her to take in air.  An ongoing series of medical missteps meant that Burgin Logan had to be induced into a coma in order for her life to be saved.  Miraculously, she and her daughter survived the birth process.

Having been given only a 20 percent shot of survival, Burgin Logan told me, “I’m on a mission to make a difference for mothers and babies.”  She writes about her experience on her site, and blogs about related issues for Lifetime Moms. 

In retrospect, Burgin Logan believes that the issue of “gender” and “not being taken seriously” played the largest role in her ordeal.  If this is the experience of a privately insured, professional woman— one can only imagine the tribulations facing those women who lack financial resources and easy availability to health services.

This article originally appeared on the women’s health site Empowher.

Tweet This Post

One out of every three women will be touched by violence during her lifetime.  In the age range spanning 15-44, women are affected in greater numbers than they are by illness and traffic accidents.  Annually, more than 4.5 million violent crimes against women occur worldwide. In the United States, those who are the victims of domestic assaults lose 8 million days of paid work per year.

Violence against women diminishes the economic development of nations. Currently, 70% of the “global poor” is comprised of women.  Building security for women creates a foundation of building blocks that yields strong civil societies—both in developing nations and those countries that are struggling to recover from the ravages of conflict and war.

It has been shown that investing in women and creating opportunities for them to generate income produces positive results.  Globally, the default rate on loans to women is extremely low.  Women spend their earned funds judiciously on food, fuel, education, and health.  Their resulting activities are community driven, and they advancer peer-led models of engagement.  If a woman gets involved in creating income, she brings her friends—who have witnessed her success—into the process.  It generates a ripple effect, and women become stakeholders in the economy.

There has been analysis showing that women in emerging countries have been crowded into low paying sectors such as serving, food, and beauty, as well as artisan projects.  Regarding the latter, this is often the result of an intervention that takes place late in the game, when skills have not been previously put into place.  The question remains, “How do you scale up from weaving baskets?”  One of the new systems being implemented is the channeling of money into communities through loans for education and healthcare.

In order for women to be active in the workforce, they must be protected by laws and have access to health care and education. Governments need to understand how women are held back by cultural strictures. One example is the issue of women and land rights.  While constituting the largest sector of agricultural workers, women make up less than 1 percent of landowners. Whether her husband loses the land she has been working on through default, or she is passed over because she does not qualify for inheritance rights—a woman separated from the land she has cultivated is left without a source of income and no safety net. 

Change must take place at two levels.  First, it must be put into play by governments, their legal systems, and the global adaptation of theInternational Violence Against Women Act.  Second, NGOs need to implement transformation through a grassroots, on the ground approach.

In a session devoted to the “intersection of socio-economic status and violence against women and girls,” it was pointed out that access to education for girls is an essential component to the economic piece—as well as a “mitigating factor.”  Wendy Baldwin, of Population Council, spoke about how “education is transformative for girls.”  Building on girls’s assets between ages 12-14 offsets a “negative life trajectory, including protection from violence.”  Baldwin explained, “If you are not in school at age 13, you are likely to be at risk for child marriage at a time you should be developing a vision for your life.”  Lynne Paterson, co-found and director of Pro Mujer, agreed that “starting younger is better.”  Her organization is working with the mothers of the next generation “to make the women change agents in their own lives.”

In the United States, the picture is not dissimilar for girls of color and those from low-income homes who do not get access to health care, education, and skills training.  They, as well, lack the requisite footing they need to move forward in life.

When a woman earns her own income, it makes it possible for her to kick out an alcoholic husband.  However, a rupture in the dynamics of a household partnership, particularly where the man is unemployed, has shown a spike in domestic violence incidents.

In order for women to reach higher paying jobs, there has to be gender parity. In the area of job creation and developing fields, such as the green sector, a place at the table has to be set for women.

Women’s financial empowerment is a key to national stability and growth.  Using only half of a country’s potential human resources is inefficient and wasteful. Additionally, reports from around the world show that violent behavior against women creates an enormous fiscal burden.

Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney told the audience that economists believe that 30 percent of a nation’s legislature must be women in order to reach a critical mass. At that point, change can be effected.

In tackling these problems, women can no longer be half the population, yet only qualify as a “special interest group.” They need to have power over the money they earn and must slip the bonds of being a “side issue.”  Another elemental step would be to get women into leadership positions—globally.  As Zainab Salbi, founder of Women for Women International pointed out in an anecdote, it’s hard to give advice to developing nations on equality…when the Western diplomatic force has less than 50 percent women.

This article originally appeared on the website WomenMakeNews

Tweet This Post

With a mixture of rage and passion that probably seemed out of whack to the full- time teachers watching me, I called him down from his seat of glory and read him the riot act.  As he skulked away, I explained in no uncertain terms to the still-shaking girl that she could go anywhere and do anything she pleased.  Then I thought to myself, It’s the 21st century and nothing has changed.

That story, and other remembrances, came to mind while I was reading the engaging anthology Click: When We Knew We Were Feminists. Editors Courtney E. Martin and J. Courtney Sullivan have fashioned a book that speaks to how much women who care about feminism have in common.  With an ongoing intergenerational dialogue between women who self-identify as feminists, that at times is tinged with a undertone of anger and resentment, these voices remind the reader of a fundamental commonality.  The high profile schisms that accompanied the Obama vs. Hillary primary race; older women questioning where younger women stand on their support of abortion rights…These divisions become neutralized and I can envision Rodney King asking, “Can we all get along?”

Reading Click will help one generation to understand and appreciate what experiences have informed another group of women—through personal histories other than their own.  The contributors range in age from 18 to 41.  As someone who is in the middle of a wave, the stories resonated for me reigniting my anger, evoking compassion, and reminding me of the days when I wondered if I were alone in thinking that something outside of me—in the culture–was wrong.

When I read Miriam Zoila Pérez’s contribution, which painted a picture of her political arguments with her “conservative” father, it made me vividly recall an afternoon when I argued with my parents about Marilyn French’s best seller, The Women’s Room. The intensity of my emotions from that conversation came back to me with absolute clarity.

What makes Click such a great read is that all of the offerings bring something different to the party.  Elisa Albert had me laughing out loud with her deconstruction of the Jewish holiday Purim in her piece, “I’m Gonna Wash That King Right Out of My Hair.”  Each of the twenty-nine essays has unique insights and observations to share.

Karen Pittelman discusses her realization that “when we bury our stories, we bury one of our greatest political strengths.”  She writes, “What I love about feminism is the idea that telling the truth about our lives is a radical, transformative act.” 

In the opening sentence to her essay, Marni Grossman states, “Sometimes it feels as though feminism was my consolation prize for surviving an eating disorder.”  She points to the tyranny of the societal message “that our value is in our sex appeal,” and imparts that “putting down the laxative and picking up Naomi Wolf was the most political act I have ever committed.”

As she evolves from questioning if the work of her war correspondent boyfriend is of greater relevance and “more serious in the eyes of the world,” Alissa Quart comes to terms with her relationship, which eventually grows into a marriage.  Simultaneously, she achieves awareness that her contributions—and the female writers that she emulates—could be “as searing, in their way, as investigating bullets, presidents, and dictators.”

Deborah Siegel shares how Anita Hill’s “ordeal” was the vehicle that “framed a younger generation’s understanding of women, politics, and power.”  More specifically, it was Siegel’s “inauguration to feminist activism” and her eye-opening recognition of the anti-feminist backlash it unleashed.

Raised by parents, aunts, and grandparents who built a foundation for her being “nurtured into feminism,” Marta L. Sanchez tells how a rape at age sixteen “instantly made me a feminist.”  Her belief system was shattered the day that a 22-year-old acquaintance offered her “a ride to church” during Christmas week.

A feminism that “fit” was the moment everything crystallized for Mathangi Subramanian, who authored “The Brown Girl’s Guide to Labels.”  In her second semester of graduate school, Subramanian discovered the work ofChandra Mohanty, “a third world feminist” who deconstructs how “western feminists fought for the right to work, while third world feminists acknowledged that women did most of the world’s work, and were…fighting for the right to rest.”

Janet Tsai examines the stereotype of being a “nerdy, smart Asian kid” who questions the authenticity of her admission to a “highly selective, innovative, start-up engineers college.”  Why is the prevailing notion that if the college has achieved a fifty-fifty gender parity, that the women can’t possibly be as smart as the men? Tsai ultimately confronts “gender differences in the sciences,” and gains understanding on why it triggered doubts about her talents and abilities.

Many of the essays are laced with individual responses to the impact and examples of mothers, and the behaviors that they modeled.  In that respect, the reactions reflect how each generation is influenced and shaped by the preceding one.

Ultimately, this volume—that pays homage to the Jane O’Reilly 1971 Ms. magazine story, “The Housewife’s Moment of Truth,”—will offer a new source of anecdotal enlightenment to a continuum of women.  How fortuitous it will be if it sparks an acknowledgment of the inherent connection between everyone’s struggles.

Hopefully, Click will fall into the hands of girls growing into womanhood, including the one from the playground who was informed, all too early, of her alleged limitations.

This article originally appeared on the website mgyerman.com.

Tweet This Post

May 30th is Military Sexual Trauma Awareness Day.  The issue is starting to get more traction in terms of visibility, Congressional hearings, and acknowledgement from agencies that span a full range of alphabet soup.

On Thursday, May 20th, a morning hearing was held. Healing the Wounds: Evaluating Military Sexual Trauma Issues, was presided over by John Hall (D-NY), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs, and Michael Michaud (D-ME), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Health.  A series of speakers drawn from veterans’ organizations, networks devoted to women’s health and sexual abuse, and representatives from the Department of Defense and the Veterans Health Administration were present.  They each had five minutes to offer testimony.

Just three weeks prior on April 29th, Congresswoman Niki Tsongas (D-MA) and Senator John Kerry (D-MA) announced the introduction of the Defense Sexual Trauma Response, Oversight and Good Governance Act (The Defense STRONG Act), a bipartisan piece of legislation.  Hoping to attack Military Sexual Trauma (MST) from the front end of the problem, The Defense STRONG Act will work to strengthen the pre-existing systems to “prevent sexual assaults, and provide support and guidance for victims that do report an incident.”  This would enable those harmed to access a military lawyer in order to fully understand their legal options.  Equally important, it will standardize training guidelines around MST prevention and response across all branches of the services.  When I spoke with Rep. Tsongas by telephone she explained that the act would be part of the Defense Authorization Bill (H.R. 5136), and would put a “system in place patterned after the Equal Opportunity measures.”  She said, “If a victim speaks with a victim’s advocate, it will remain confidential.  It can’t be subpoenaed.”   Tsongas added, “I’m looking forward to making sure this language stays in the bill.”

Witnesses drilled down and pinpointed problems being faced by MST survivors as circumstances presently stand.  A wide range of symptoms, on the physical and emotional continuum, was referenced.  They included: mood disorders, depression, substance abuse, adjustment disorders, hypertension, eating disorders, sexually transferred infections (STI), unplanned pregnancy, self-destructive behaviors, and suicide.  It was noted that 75 percent of homeless female veterans have been sexually assaulted.

A sexual attack is a trigger for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).  Susan McCutcheon, The Director of Family Services,Women’s Mental Health and Military Sexual Trauma, Veterans Health Administration (VHA) stated, “MST is an experience, not a diagnosis.  PTSD is the diagnosis.”

The FBI ranks rape as the second most violent crime after murder.  Repeatedly, those testifying underscored that rape is an act of violence, not sexual desire.  It was acknowledged that males in the military are casualties of MST as well as women.

For those assaulted, career goals are disrupted as they face “isolation, retribution, ostracism, and accusations.”  Their situation becomes untenable, as they must continue to live and work in close proximity with their attackers.  As Helen Benedict, author of The Lonely Soldier: The Private War of Women Serving in Iraq, testified, “some 90 percent of victims never report assaults within the military because the culture is so hostile to them.”  She explained how the victim is treated like a perpetrator, and in addition to not being believed, “they are intimidated out of pursing justice.”

Phyllis Greenberger, President and CEO of the Society for Women’s Health Research, told the committee that “women are the fastest growing sector of VA patients,” with “15 percent of women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan experiencing sexual assault or harassment.”  23 percent of the women using the VA services have reported MST, yet half of all cases go underreported. Jennifer Hunt, Project Coordinator, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, observed that the “majority of assailants are older and of a higher rank than their victims.” It is recognized that those who get immediate full care do the best.  Yet when women feel re-traumatized in their efforts to get help and in navigating the system, it makes moving forward problematic.

There was no lack of suggestions on how the situation could be improved. At the top of the list was the need to eliminate mixed-gender care settings. Creating separate facilities was put forth as the optimum goal. Using a civilian rape crisis model, which is not geared to a predetermined agenda, was another proposal.  Women report a dearth of properly trained personnel, with those in counseling positions resorting to what has been termed “pills and pep talks” (despite the fact that women are not responding well to commonly prescribed medications).

Benedict put forth promoting more women and distributing them across the forces to eliminate isolation, and rejecting recruits with a history of sexual violence. Greenberger dryly offered, “No victim should have to chase after their own care.”

Scott Berkowitz, President and Founder of RAINN (Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network) sited a lack of “institutional support, leadership commitment and resources” to fix the problem and a commitment by base commanders and Pentagon Brass to “zero tolerance and routine prosecutions.”  He did, however, comment on the progress that has been moved forward under the auspices of the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO), which was established in 2005 by the Department of Defense “to function as a single point of accountability and oversight for sexual assault policy.”

Kay Whitley, the Director of SAPRO, addressed prevention through training, treatment, support of victims, and system accountability.  She related that during the past three years, reports of sexual assaults had increased by 10 percent annually.  Whitley broke the best-case protocol down into “care, reporting, response, and tracking.”

Getting appropriate and timely medical care is only part of the problem.  Steering PTSD claims through the system is formidable, and often exacerbates the original trauma.  Joy J. Ilem, Deputy National Legislative Director forDisabled American Veterans, was very clear about the obstacles. She informed those in attendance, “to receive disability compensation from an MST-related condition…the standard of evidence is stricter than for combat injuries, or even for military occupational injuries. She characterized veterans’ compensation claims for disabilities resulting from MST as “an uphill battle for VA Disability Compensation,” explaining that “if an assault is not reported by the victim during his or her military service, establishing service connection later on for disabling conditions related to MST can be daunting.”

The different aspects of reporting an attack and trying to receive benefits are complex at best. Bradley G. Mayes, Director, Compensation and Pension Service, Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, offered that there was “room for improvement, but we have taken steps.”  However, many concerns have to be taken into account, particularly as confidentiality is a paramount concern.

I contacted Thom Wilborn, a spokesman for Disabled American Veterans, to speak further about the two options for filing an MST report, via a Victim Reporting Preference Statement DD FORM 2910. He clarified the two different types of reports that service members can file after an attack.

• Unrestricted Reporting – Reporting a Crime which is Investigated
• Restricted Reporting – Confidentially Reporting a Crime which is not Investigated

A restricted report allows the victim to receive health care services, but the paperwork does not enter the realm of an official charge – thereby protecting the privacy of the victim.  It does not involve the chain of command.  In an unrestricted report, all records become public.  The information goes out to the commanding officer and division commander for a formal investigation.

A problem arises when a service member, who wants to apply for PTSD benefits and has filed a restricted report, can not get their records from one department agency to another.  Wilborn told me, “There needs to be a way to report MST and be able to advance it to whatever point the service member wants.”  He made clear that the report should be able to remain confidential, while simultaneously recorded in a way to be available for disability claims. The DAV’s primary concern is that the Department of Veteran’s Affairs be able to access restricted Department of Defense Documents.
Following the testimony, I contacted two of the invited presenters.  Jennifer Hunt, Project Coordinator, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, believed that “good steps have been made, but more must be done.”  She specifically pointed to “inter-operability” encompassing improved communication between the Department of Defense and the Veterans Administration.  She remarked on how many people were in attendance for the hearing, and lamented that that there was no time for follow up questions due to the President of Mexico’s visit.

When I spoke with Anuradha K. Bhagwati, Executive Director of Service Women’s Action Network (SWAN) and former Marine Captain, she was quite concise in her evaluation of how things stand and what needs to be done.  She said, “The Veteran’s Benefit Administration (VBA) simply does not understand how traumatic it is for an MST survivor to file a claim for compensation. The Veteran’s Administration (VA) is coming from a theoretical place.  Their system is great on paper. The VA has made overtures, but their claims officers are poorly trained.  The system is broken.  Even if victims submit evidence of trauma, it’s not enough. The VA has not been able to get up to speed.  Their services work for some people, but they are in the minority. We need people to come forward in order to prosecute offenders, but right now DOD cannot guarantee the safety of survivors. Most commanders do not handle complaints responsibly. The fact of the matter is that survivors are not sufficiently protected.

There seems like a giant abyss.  It doesn’t seem like VA is talking to MST survivors or MST advocates. MST is best understood by MST orgs (VETWOW, stopmilitaryrape.org, militarysexualtrauma.org). SWAN is advocating for third party oversight. We believe a long-term solution is to applyTitle VII of the Civil Rights Act to the military.  Service members need to have the option to sue the military, if the military doesn’t protect them. Without that, commanders have no incentive to protect survivors. The Defense STRONG Act deals with the current system as we have it. It will fix some really broken pieces of the SAPRO reporting system, but it only deals with part of the problem.”

At the conclusion of Bhagwati’s testimony, she paid homage to the women from previous generations who had “suffered at the hands of fellow servicemen decades ago” – with their ordeals still yet to be recognized.  She read into the record the request of a Vietnam-era veteran who had survived MST. The sentence was a clear but simple appeal.  “Please help me feel validated before I die.”

This article originally appeared on the website Women Make News.

Tweet This Post

As the information started to come in, the public learned that Taylor was being charged with third-degree rape and soliciting prostitution – a reference to the young girl who was brought to his room at the Rockland County hotel.  The accounts asserted that Taylor paid $300 for the “encounter."

For those unfamiliar with New York State law, a Class A felony rape in the third degree occurs when an adult is over 21 years old and the minor is under 17.  The man who presented the girl to Taylor, Rashee Davis, was repeatedly referred to in the press as the “girl’s pimp.”

Pimp is a term that has a specific connotation.  If Davis had been characterized as a trafficker, a very different and more complete understanding of the story would have been advanced.

In March, the authorities were informed by the family that the girl was missing.  The Associated Press detailed that she met Davis two to three weeks ago at a Bronx bus stop. She described to investigators how the 36-year-old man offered her a place to live and a way to earn money.

When a girl is under-age, she is automatically classified as a trafficking victim.  Norma Ramos, Executive Director of Coalition Against Trafficking in Women, spoke to me about the rapidity with which traffickers “identify runaways and move in on them.”  The statistics show that these children are picked up between six to eight hours after they have gone missing from their homes.

The girl’s uncle received a text message from his niece stating that she was being driven back to the Bronx.  She gave him an address, where she was found with Davis.  She had a black eye and facial bruising.

Most of the local news stories gave little to no insight to the aspects of human trafficking apparent in this case, nor the prevalence of this activity on New York City streets.  There were, however, repeated references to Taylor’s stature as “one of the greatest defensive players in NFL history,” his past brushes with the law, and his drug and alcohol problems.

Ramos pointed to the “perceived entitlement to buy sex” and in a release written about the event stated that it was:

“yet another example of the most powerful, respected and privileged among us demonstrating the normalization of the sexual exploitation of women and girls. Mr. Taylor is part of what we in the anti-trafficking movement call the demand that fuels sex trafficking. Without the demand for commercial sexual exploitation there would be no 16-year-olds or 26-year-olds for that matter, being offered for sale, to Johns by traffickers.”

I contacted Rachel Lloyd, Executive Director of Gems, based in New York City. The organization works to get girls who are between the ages of 12-21, “who have experienced commercial sexual exploitation and domestic trafficking, to exit the commercial sex industry and to develop to their full potential.”  “It’s not a unique story,” she emphasized.  “It’s only unique because a celebrity is involved.”  Gems has worked to bring attention to the fact that the entry point for girls into the commercial sex industry is between 12 and 14 years old.  For underage girls, it is not a question of choice – as they are lured, misled, forced, and manipulated into the role. The numbers show that annually, 100,000 children in the United States are victims of trafficking. During a discussion about the media’s presentation of the story, Lloyd explained, “We don’t use the words prostitution or prostitute. We see it as commercial sexual exploitation and domestic minor trafficking.”

Bradley Myles, Executive Director and CEO of Polaris Project weighed in via e-mail writing,  “It is important to highlight that cases like this happen throughout the United States, where minors are sexually exploited and bought by men every day."

A look at the responses to one Internet report showed 3,000 views and 2,000 comments.  An oft-repeated question asked, “Was he supposed to ask for the birth certificate of a prostitute?” Another recommended, “Write him a ticket and let him go.”  Only a few observers engaged with the issue of human trafficking.  There were numerous calls to legalize prostitution, but few reflections on where the culpability of customers and traffickers fits into the equation.

This is a conversation that goes far deeper than Lawrence Taylor’s personal actions.  It’s time for the media to take responsibility for how the language used in telling such a narrative adds to the lack of awareness about the ramifications of human trafficking. In the struggle to eradicate the exploitation of girls and women, this would be an excellent first step.

This article originally appeared on the website Women Make News.
 

Tweet This Post

Women (and men) who believe that women’s health care should be "safe, fair, and covered," have the opportunity to make their voices heard today by joining in a chorus demanding that women’s bodies and health be respected.

As the average American tries to make sense of the constantly shifting health plan and attendant debates, one issue remains crystal clear. Women’s reproductive rights are being used as a football and bargaining chip in the fight to secure a long awaited health care bill.

The Women’s Media Center, whose tag line is "Making Women Visible and Powerful in the Media," has created a site with a full menu of tools to encourage people to get proactive. With a strong graphic presence in black and red, icons direct the visitor to venues including petitions to sign, how to connect with elected representatives, and insights from the National Women’s Law Center (They coined the phrase "Being a Woman Is Not a Pre-Existing Condition").

The Get Informed link, identified by a light bulb, gives a timeline with the most recent developments on the legislative voting, dating from November 7, 2009. The list of facts on the health care bill is link-rich, and encourages visitors to go off-site for additional information.

In an example of the how the power of Social Media can be harnessed, ways to connect on Facebook, Twitter, and "Tell Your Friends" are encouraged.

Contacting Jehmu Greene, President of the Women’s Media Center, by e-mail, I asked her for some back-story on the evolution of the "Not Under the Bus" platform. She responded,

"We oppose legislation that throws women under the bus, which both the House and Senate bill now do. There are major fixes that need to happen, and we will continue to work to fix anti-woman provisions in health care. Our goal is to keep working to rescind the Hyde amendment and to pass the Freedom of Choice Act to guarantee reproductive justice to women."

Jessica Arons, Director of the Women’s Health and Rights Program at the Center for American Progress, explained it to me why she believes it is so important for people to "speak up right now."

"The final bill is being hammered out in the next week. Originally, pro-choice groups tried to be nice and work out a compromise on the Hyde Amendment because they realized how important health reform is. But hard line abortion opponents refused to play fair and meet in the middle. Yet we’re the ones being asked to take one for the team and accept brand new restrictions on abortion coverage. We’ve compromised enough by agreeing to extend the Hyde Amendment to the new exchange and we can’t bend anymore.

The House and Senate bills not only apply the Hyde Amendment to a new group of women – everyone participating in a new health insurance exchange – the bills also impose federal restrictions on abortion coverage under private health plans for the first time ever.

I think the intent of both bills is to encourage private health plans to drop abortion coverage. The Stupak Amendment in the House bill only allows a plan that includes abortion coverage to be sold to people who can pay 100% of their premiums themselves. That’s only 14% of people participating in any new health exchange. No insurer is going to offer a product that only 14% of the market can purchase. And the Senate language that Sen. Nelson insisted on would make insurers charge enrollees two separate premiums each month – one for abortion coverage and one for everything else. There is absolutely no justification for this rule if your only concern is to keep taxpayer money from going to abortion, since neither premium would come from the government. The only reason to require a rule like that is to make it so cumbersome that insurers and enrollees don’t want to be bothered with it, and decide to deal only with plans that exclude abortion.

Regardless of what the new health market looks like, it will be large enough to influence the rest of the market (i.e., the employer market). Even though abortion coverage in employer plans is the norm right now, if insurance companies decide to drop abortion coverage from their plans in a national or state exchange, they may also decide to drop it from their employer-sponsored plans. If either of the Stupak or Nelson provisions makes it into the final health bill, abortion-inclusive coverage could become much more difficult to obtain in the new health insurance market and eventually in every health insurance market."

In creating a process by which women can learn, act, and empower themselves, the "Not Under the Bus" action day encourages those who want to be heard a simple and direct way to become part of the dialogue.

Cross-posted with permission from The Huffington Post.

Follow Marcia G. Yerman on Twitter.

Tweet This Post

Women have always cared for others.  Sometimes, it was the only way they could support themselves in economies that didn’t allow for other options (think Jane Eyre).

For those who can not afford the services of others, or are combining caregiving tasks with their own full-time work, the physical and emotional demands are exhausting.

I have had the experience from both sides of the life cycle.  Parents, who had long and productive lives, required help when they were felled by extended illness.  A child, whose needs went beyond the requisite care, necessitated my time, energy, and focus to ensure that he was guaranteed a sure-footed path in life.

Having done both, I know it can be draining, frustrating, and at times – deeply sad.  But I wouldn’t go back and change my choice to be pro-active.  I saw tangible results from my actions, and I sleep with a clear conscience.

There is an ad on television about the middle-age woman who got behind in her credit card payments because she gave up her job to “take care of Mom.”  The pitch line is she has a friend in her credit card company, so she doesn’t have to worry. (Yeah, right.  Check the interest rate!).

Instead of credit card loans, how about a tax credit for those who need to leave the work force to take care of a family member?  Let’s reexamine the structure of the social security benefits of a mother who needs to be at home with a child.  In those “non-productive” years, a big, fat zero gets factored into her earnings average.

We need to move forward with advocacy and legislative solutions.  For the caregivers devoted to either our older citizens or those who make up the future generation, there has got to be a better way.
 

Tweet This Post

At some period during a woman’s lifetime, she will be called upon to help a family member who requires caregiving services.  Whether it is in the role of daughter, mother, wife, aunt, or niece – women invariably are there to fill the gap when others are in need of assistance.  Regardless of whether they have jobs or professional commitments, the task usually falls to the females in the family circle.

Those in the sandwich generation are doubly hit.  When a woman gives up her time and earning power to supply services that others are paid for, she loses the annual revenue that is factored into her Social Security benefits statistics.

At the 2007 Freedom on Our Own Terms conference, presented by the Bella Abzug Leadership Institute, Gloria Steinem addressed the need for a “redefinition of work.”  She stated that caregiving is 30% of productive labor, and emphasized that a monetary value had to be attributed to the unpaid work that women deliver to society.  This would make it viable, and thereby recognized via the tax code.

This topic needs to be taken to the legislative level, and women have to advocate for action from their elected officials.  It’s not going to get done otherwise.

Note:  I wrote this in the Emergency Room at midnight, while I waited for my Father to be seen by a doctor.
 

Tweet This Post